Federalizing Concealed Carry

The gun proposal would make concealed weapons permits from one state valid in other states as long as the person obeys the laws of other states, such as weapons bans in certain localities. It does not establish national standards for concealed weapons permits and would not allow those with permits to carry weapons into Wisconsin and Illinois, the two states that do not have concealed weapons laws.

Some would say that the States should have rights to manage their own gun laws. I generally support States rights, but this is a 2nd Amendment issue. The 2nd Amendment made firearms ownership an American right. Subsequent amendments incorporated the Constitutionâ€™s amendments to the States.

Word is that it might passâ€¦

This issue is near and dear to me because I recently traveled through a bunch of states with differing CCW laws. Brian, my 12 year old son, was in charge of researching the state laws and informing me what was legal. He decided, at the start of the trip, that my Ruger LCP and his Kimber Desert Warrior 1911 were the only pistols we owned that met magazine capacity requirements for all the states we would pass through. He then would analyze the upcoming states and let me know if carry was permitted and what if any restrictions I should know about.

Butâ€¦ why should I be able to defend our RV in Indiana, but not neighboring Illinois? It makes no sense, especially in light of our 2nd Amendment.

So I hope it passes. And I hope that Congress federalizes, correctly, the right to defend yourself anywhere in this country.

16 Replies to “Federalizing Concealed Carry”

I saw a report on FNC yesterday re: a policeman overreacting to an auto accident in which his son was involved. The altercation with the policeman and the other party was caught on video. The cop who pulled his gun on a young woman admitted later that he overreacted. What I found most interesting is that the cop’s son and another person in the other vehicle were both carrying guns and were permitted to carry them. Neither one used their weapons in the heat of the earlier altercation.

The 2nd Amendment tasked the U.S. government with protecting the natural right of a citizen to defend himself, his family, and his property.
That arms were necessary to do this has always been the norm, given the variation in bodily strength and the characteristics of mobs. Arms that a single person can use for defense if properly trained are all
legitimate, concaled or not. Automatic weapons are not included: a shotgun will do the trick. Defense against mobs is a job for government with armed citizens legally assistig in a posse.

What about when the mob are the people fed up with having their hard earned money, their time and their freedom taken away? I hope the American people understand that the government doesn’t need to take all our weapons in order to subdue an entire population.

Uhmmm… I happen to speak as somebody who once prepared, with a firearm, to defend against a mob. An AR-15 would have been welcome at the time. All I had was an 870 shotgun. Fortunately, the mob didn’t reach us. But the tear gas did.

Ask Korean shop owners in LA how just a pistol would work.

I say… everything but indirect (i.e. mortar), suppression (crew served automatic weapons), and special weapons (nuke, bio, chemical) should be ok.

Mark Pryor knows all about that. The Democratic senator from pro-gun Arkansas was nowhere to be seen on the Senate floor during Wednesday’s showdown over a proposal, championed by the National Rifle Association, that would have gutted state gun-control laws across the nation.

After a morning of angry speeches, a vote was called at high noon. Toward the end of the vote, Pryor entered the chamber through the back door, took a few steps inside, flashed a thumbs-down to the clerk, and retreated as fast and furtively as somebody dodging gunfire.

Several minutes later, the Democrats had racked up more than enough votes to block the proposal. “Are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote?” the presiding officer inquired.

Pryor burst back in, this time through a side door. “Mr. President!” he called out. “Mr. President!” He stopped in the well to consult with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a gun-control advocate who was keeping the whip sheet. Schumer gave Pryor a nod, and the Arkansan — reassured that his vote was not needed to defeat the proposal — changed his vote to an “aye.”

If Pryor wasn’t exactly a profile in courage, keep in mind: The gun lobby has a lot of money and a lot of clout, not to mention a lot of guns. And it doesn’t mind firing off a few rounds to keep lawmakers in line.

Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) served this function during the debate when he reminded his colleagues that the NRA would factor this vote into its ratings. “The National Rifle Association, the NRA, is a strong supporter of this amendment,” he warned, and it’s also “specifically scoring this amendment in terms of member votes.”

Looking down the barrel of that gun, 20 of the 60 Democrats in the chamber defected to the NRA’s side. Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), a gun-loving lawmaker whose aide was charged in 2007 with trying to carry a loaded pistol and extra ammunition into a Senate office building, even spoke on the floor about how his Democratic colleagues were spreading “misinformation.”

A couple of seats away, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), a gun-control supporter, raised his eyebrows and shook his head.

Only two Republicans went against the gun lobby, but that was enough to leave supporters just short of the 60 votes they needed. The slim margin was no accident: Other Democrats, such as Pennsylvania’s Bob Casey and Colorado’s Mark Udall and Michael Bennet, were said to have been willing to vote “no” if necessary. Twenty minutes after the voting began, Bennet and Udall left the cloakroom together and walked into the chamber. Bennet went to the well to consult with Schumer, who indicated that it was safe for Bennet — a product of D.C.’s St. Albans School — to vote with the NRA. Bennet looked to Udall, who gave an approving nod, and cast his “aye” vote.

Schumer found himself in the unusual position of opposing many of the moderate Democrats he helped bring to office as the head of Senate Democrats’ campaign efforts, including Webb, Casey, Jon Tester (Mont.) and Mark Warner (Va.). “Senator,” a reporter noted to Schumer at a post-vote news conference, “you were staring down some of the folks you were losing on the floor.”

“No. I wasn’t at all,” Schumer replied. “There was no staring down at all — none.”

Lautenberg tried to defend his colleague. “He was, I thought, mellow, very specific, and not at all threatening or suggesting punishment,” he offered.

Either way, it had been clear that Democrats needed some more discipline on gun-control measures. They had already lost votes earlier this year on proposals to allow the carrying of concealed firearms in national parks and to repeal most of the District’s gun controls.

The D.C. measure passed with 62 votes. But this time, two Democrats, Claire McCaskill (Mo.) and Arlen Specter (Pa.), were persuaded to switch sides — and they weren’t the only lawmakers caught in the crossfire between the NRA and gun-control forces.

Earlier this week, Lautenberg told reporters that Harry Reid (Nev.), the Democratic leader, would vote against the proposal. But Reid testily refuted Lautenberg. “I’m not going to explain why I’m voting for it,” he explained. “I’m just voting for it.”

Reid stayed out of view Wednesday while the true believers on both sides abandoned their usual positions

Urban liberals, who typically champion federal authority, lined up to proclaim their fealty to states’ rights. “Leave us alone! Leave us alone!” demanded Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). Her California colleague, Dianne Feinstein (D), even displayed an enlarged photo of the flag-draped caskets of police officers who have been killed.

Southerners, who historically promote states’ rights, demanded that the federal government overrule the states on gun laws. John Thune (R-S.D.), who sponsored the measure, said that he was merely trying to “clarify this patchwork” of state laws, and he accused the Democrats of “wild exaggerations” and “scare tactics.”

For once, the gun-control crowd won a shootout with the NRA. But nobody was talking about disarmament. “We know the gun lobby is strong,” Schumer said after the vote. “We know they will be back.”

States rights people believe that not specified in the Constitution should be left to the States.

Senators who fell for a states rights argument on this bill don’t deserve to be in the Senate because they truly do not understand, or do not agree with,the fundamental nature of our governmental structure.

And how come when it is “we’ve got to beat the NRA” it isn’t a problem, but when it is “we’ve got to beat Obama” it is?

From the beginning, “states rights” has been a convenient claim in service to a policy preference that some substantial part of the nation opposes. It has no inherent claim to correctness because the Constitution was deliberately invented with a competition for power between states and the federal governments as the Founders believed in competing power centers as a check on government. From Calhoun and slavery to abortion and guns, the struggle continues as the compromises of 1787 require compromises today.

Schumer and Lautenburg are scum. So is Pryor. All are democrats. At least #7 agrees that a substantial part of the nation agreed with this proposal. I hope he agreed with it as well, since he is very knowledgable about the Constitution.

Thank you, #12. We might note that we can’t get much guidance from the Constitution on this issue, for although the Constitution grants the right to bear arms, it says nothing about what constitutes reasonable regulation. Open or concealed, big or small, many or few, automatic or not, licenses or not, open or restricted sales, state or federal priority, interstate reciprocity, etc, are all questions to be answered by the political process in which the losers appeal to the courts. Ultimately, many of the questions will get to the highest court which will then either rule on what the law actually says or what the Constitution says. Eventually, we arrive at the practical result: The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is.

So, if and when the political resolution doesn’t give the policy you want, you hire some really good lawyers and take the politics to court. Then after a few years of court processes and much shouting and much income for lawyers, some court makes a final ruling. But, take heart, even if that final court ruling goes against you, there will be plenty of future chances to re-open the wounds. The biggest winners will be the politicians and the lawyers and the lobbyists who collect from both sides as long as the question remains the least bit open. It keeps Washington green and provides a non-violent resolution of deeply held differences. As Churchill said: “better jaw-jaw than war-war”.